What you’re talking about is something bigger than simple novelty. It kinda sounds like depression, and that’s a lot harder to fight against than breaking routine. I mean, breaking routine helps me a little bit, but it’s certainly not the cure.

But if you want to argue there’s only a limited number of things to do for free, you can spin that the other way, too. There is only a limited number of things to buy. I dunno, that kinda makes me feel better, but I’m weird like that.

Not all new things cost money. You can walk a new way to the same places. You can find new books at the library or online. You can just do things you already do in a different way, and that can be novelty.

Unlike the current system, where healthcare becomes completely out of reach of normal people.

I don’t think it is (or at least it isn’t fully), based on the guy’s post history.

By that logic, forcing any name on a child is selfish, so they should pick their own name, since they are the ones that would have it. Although, in that case, temporary names would probably be a thing, so I don’t really see the issue (or you could use other cultural naming conventions like that, but that is one that exists.)

Unless your argument is nonconformity is selfish? I personally think some people will find a reason to make fun of another person, but nominative determination does have its appeal if you don’t believe that.

All names were unique at some point, but that’s a moot point. Eventually they will either become more popular or less popular.

How is it a stupid name? Are rarer names stupid? It’s just a name, if a very uncommon one, and it’s not even particularly hard to spell or pronounce, nor is it without thought. Combination names can sometimes produce odd results, so this one feels fairly mild.

Are you arguing that variants of names meaning blessing shouldn’t exist, or are you just against a new name? Because every name was new at one point, and lots of new names are variants of older ones.

Eh, the kid could have worse, and it seems pretty fitting for the name’s origins.

If you think of children as blessings, and want to change an existing name a little – in this case, Jessica – it makes sense. The first recorded instance of Jessica is from Shakespeare, who could’ve changed the biblical Iesca (Jeska) to Jessica by mixing Jesse into it (or making Jesse into a woman’s name… or other potential origins like the word jess being turned into a name.) And you consider Bless to be a name (though rather unpopular), so it wouldn’t even be particularly odd for the name.

You could post an example and invalidate my point, but I think there’s a good reason why you didn’t.

You will never get an answer from them because the small nuggets of truth that exist in Republican talking points are then used to make batshit claims and then turned into a point of profit for some grifter somewhere.

I have yet to see the trucks with an idolized Kamala Harris holding an American flag on them or even a single article of cultwear pushed out like the MAGA hat, so the Democrats are really slacking in their zealotry.

I can’t believe you would trample on my freedom to extinct an animal like that.

Currently, my taxes go into destroying homeless encampments and arresting them, so we could probably use that money for housing and feeding them instead.

Feed and house them, can you not read?

If I make a million dollars by exploiting people and give $100,000 to charity, I think that still makes me a monster.

Anyone know if the Secret Service would show up if you threaten to boop someone right on the snoot?

It’s only a contradiction from a flawed human logical perspective. We, as imperfect beings, cannot see a world that is capable of free will that is also free of Evil. But God is capable of all things, including creating such a world where that is possible.

God is capable of a world existing without Satan and having free will, for example. Satan’s existence is reliant on God’s will, and should God will it, Satan would not exist, and to ascribe all Evil purely to Satan is to blame God for Evil. It is, frankly, an incorrect assertion. Satan could be a manifestation of Evil, I could understand that, but Satan is not the CAUSE or even perpetuator of Evil. Evil would have to be a fundamental force created by God in that example, in order to allow free will.

Does God have the ability and power to make it so people have free will AND there is no Evil: Yes or no?

That is God refusing, by choosing to let free will dictate actions. God acting as a bystander while those that didn’t take any actions towards Evil suffer punishes those who chose to be Good because of God’s actions (or lack thereof.) Pretending that this aligns with free will is inconsequential.

Does God have the ability and power to make it so people have free will AND there is no Evil: Yes or no?

Every atrocity and every suffering is the fault of Satan.

If Satan is the cause of all suffering and atrocities, then God either cannot stop them and/or refuses to stop them, but if we assume the former, Satan is more powerful than an omnipotent and omniscient being, and if we assume the latter, God is also responsible in part for some of that suffering by refusing to stop them. I don’t think either of those are correct.